


Southern Pansies: Subversive (Trans) Masculinity in the Ethereal & Occult Beings of Good Omens

by elegantidler, irisbleufic



Category: Good Omens - Neil Gaiman & Terry Pratchett
Genre: Canon LGBTQ Character, Canon Queer Character, Canon Queer Relationship, Character Analysis, Character Study, Don’t copy to another site, Essays, Gen, LGBTQ Character, LGBTQ Themes, Literary Theory, M/M, Multi, Other, Queer Themes, Trans Character, Trans Male Character
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2019-04-04
Updated: 2019-04-04
Packaged: 2020-01-04 14:09:25
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 1,600
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/18345254
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/elegantidler/pseuds/elegantidler, https://archiveofourown.org/users/irisbleufic/pseuds/irisbleufic
Summary: "They'd each been there, just once, spending as little time as possible in the room and, in [the southern pansy's] case, trying not to touch any flat surface.  The other one, the flash southern bastard in the sunglasses, was—Shadwell suspected—not someone he ought to offend.  In Shadwell's simple world, anyone in sunglasses who wasn't actually on a beach was probably a criminal.  He suspected that Crowley was from the Mafia, or the underworld, although he would have been surprised how right he nearly was.  But the soft one in the camelhair coat was a different matter, and he'd risked trailing him back to his base once, and he could remember the way.  He thought Aziraphale was a Russian spy.  He could ask him for money.  Threaten him a bit."—Good Omens, by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett





	Southern Pansies: Subversive (Trans) Masculinity in the Ethereal & Occult Beings of Good Omens

As in most narrative literary texts, performativity is a crucial aspect of masculine expression in the Bible. This is the topic addressed by Deryn Guest in her discussion of performative masculinities and the transgender gaze in [_Transgender, Intersex and Biblical Interpretation_](https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cx3tqd), as seen in the story of Jehu ([Melachim II: 1-9 / 2 Kings 1-9](https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15907/jewish/Chapter-1.htm)). She demonstrates how individuals construct and perform their genders in relation to both cultural norms of the time and to each other.  These genders are performed through objects, actions, and inhabited identities. Given that _Good Omens_ is both transformative work based upon _and_ satire aimed at Judeo-Christian textual traditions, this baseline is a useful comparison when examining the specific, subversive trans masculinity that both Aziraphale and Crowley embody and perform.

Sexuality is a key component of performative gender.  According to traditional, broadly-accepted norms, men are heterosexual and overtly sexual beings, whereas women are devoid of sexuality until “the right man” comes along.  This traditional model of gender performance is complicated by queer identities. People are expected to perform and identify _only_ with the socially-accepted, dominant heteronormative sexuality.  As a consequence, queer couples written by straight people for straight audiences tend to mirror heteronormative couples.  Queer individuals often end up performing their gender differently, or having their gender performance othered by the dominant, non-queer culture.  Gay men are seen as effeminate, and gay women are either straight male fantasies or ugly depending on how “correctly” they perform femininity. Historically, trans people have only been permitted to medically transition if they intend to be heteronormative.

Consider Crowley, who is stylishly well-dressed and exceptionally luxurious even for the decade that coined such a term as _metrosexual._  He drives an extremely old, exceptionally nice car.  He has a bunch of houseplants and has had them since at least the ’70s, years and years before the present-day houseplant craze.  These aren’t traditionally masculine-associated clothes and belongings. Shadwell might be slightly afraid of Crowley, but he still groups him under the same umbrella as Aziraphale when he refers to them both as “Southern pansies” and “Southern nancy boys,” terminology he doesn’t use to insult R.P. Tyler (whose fussiness, fastidiousness, and yappy poodle can unquestionably be read as coding that is similar to that of Aziraphale and Crowley).  While the question of sexual orientation is subtextually raised for all of these men, in the case of Tyler, it’s immediately answered by references to his wife. Anathema, while not afraid of Aziraphale and Crowley at all, has no difficulty reading them as queer when she encounters them on a deserted country lane.

With regard to belongings, we can turn to the ways in which men in _Good Omens_ interact with the objects they own for further enlightenment.  We’re told that Crowley has “looked after” the Bentley—but, later on, the text places Crowley’s relationship with his car in direct opposition to Mr. Young’s relationship with his car.  While Crowley just wishes away damage and never buys petrol (except the one time he did it for the _James Bond_ bullet-hole windscreen transfers), the cis-heteronormative Mr. Young checks his car every weekend and has read the manual.  He works on his car by hand and understands its essential functions, whereas Crowley, more concerned with aesthetics and his car fitting like "a sort of whole body glove," has never taken a moment to delve into the nuts and bolts.  

If affection for one’s car as expressed by _manually working on one’s car_ is a traditionally masculine performance, then Mr. Young embodies and performs it according to cultural norms.  In contrast, Crowley subverts that affection-fueled performance when he restructures it around his own masculine identity—that is, it’s more essential that the _visible_ performance of his vehicle matches the particular embodiment of his masculine performance.  Further to this point, from a biblical perspective, we should consider the manner in which Jehu (10th ruler of the northern Kingdom of Israel post-Jeroboam I) uses his chariot as a crucial part of his masculine performance as falling into the same vein.  Crowley’s method of caring for and interacting with his vehicle runs counter to even most biblical manifestations thereof.

Many biblical episodes, like the narrative surrounding Jehu, showcase how particular ways of interaction with weapons and a chariot are key elements in masculine performance of the time.  Even today, violence is near-inextricable from traditional masculinity. In comparison to this paradigm, what does _Aziraphale_ do with his sword?  He gives it away to protect someone else.  He doesn’t use it to keep Adam and Eve out of the Garden, and he doesn’t use it to protect them from animals.  Instead, he gives it to them and tells them to protect _themselves_ .  Violence and aggressive defense are simply not part of his masculinity, and this is evident from the Beginning.  It’s overwhelmingly significant that his one violent plan—that aimed at killing the Antichrist—is very much tied up in his former identity as an angel, _not_ in his human masculinity. Indeed, upon seeing Adam, the child Antichrist, he trails off into uncertainty in the midst of telling Shadwell to kill him.  He suggests maybe they should _wait_.  Therefore, we see that Aziraphale’s masculinity, like Crowley’s, is not in line with traditional norms.  It’s no more aggressive or violent than Crowley’s. Rather, it’s that of an old-fashioned bookshop owner with a precise voice and soft hands—a bookshop owner for whom public physical intimacy with another man comes easily.

Neither Crowley’s, nor Aziraphale’s masculinity is in line with traditional norms. Neither one of them is aggressive _or_ arrogant enough about it, especially not by the typical masculine standards of 1990.  With regard to Crowley’s living space, his masculinity is a bit anxious and inhabits a tidy flat adorned with a lot of lovingly-tended green plants.  He displays an essential openness in his physical interactions with another man ( _i.e._ Aziraphale), which he reserves for no one else.  For that matter, consider Aziraphale: a total subversion of traditional masculinity, perhaps to an even more clearly-telegraphed extent than Crowley.  Everything about him—his hands, his voice, his clothing, his dining sensibilities, and even his business practices—all read as queerly subversive masculinity to everyone around him.

What makes Aziraphale’s and Crowley’s particular subversion of masculinity both remarkable _and_ understandable is indivisible from their history.  These two watched over 6,000 years of masculinity in the making—entrenched in countless permutations of oppression and violence*—and decided that their masculinity would be anything _but_ . Rather, their masculinity is friendship between those who were fated to be enemies.  It is _working together_ .  It is physical comfort and affection; it is softness, wanting to be left alone together, and not messing people about.  Their masculinity is _theirs_ .  They created it; they perform it both individually and together.  It is _queer_.

Returning to the discussion of belongings, we would do well to examine the aspect of business practices.  Consider how Aziraphale handles the bookshop. Most antiquarian booksellers are very much in the trade to make a profit.  It is a cis, straight, _male-_ dominated business model—and everything Aziraphale’s business practices are not.  What does the angel do? Hoards his books. Collects them, curates them, _adores_ them.  The shop’s merely a front for survival, out of necessity, to blend in and be left alone.  Making a profit is the least of his concerns, and there is _nothing_ more conventional to accepted masculine norms than making a profit and flaunting your success.  Aziraphale’s core collection of prized Bibles is even a side-step from what most collectors would consider desirable.  Misprints are usually valuable, especially in first editions, but he’s collecting a class of misprints that’s relatively yawn-worthy in comparison to more conventional literature.  Nothing about Aziraphale, his business, _or_ his collecting practices demonstrates typical masculinity.  He subverts it as thoroughly as Crowley.

Next to Aziraphale's bookshop is another establishment called Intimate Books, and customers frequently confuse the two entrances.  When this happens, Aziraphale pointedly ignores them. Aziraphale’s shop is an extension of himself and his identity; it stands in opposition and contrast to the shop next door.  Even though Soho has been historically and _remains_ a queer district of London, it is highly unlikely that Intimate Books, while not hostile to Soho’s denizens, caters to queer sexualities.  While these are both bookshops and people confuse the two, they do not and _cannot_ cross between them.  Intimate Books is a cisnormative, heterosexual, and openly sexualized space, whereas Aziraphale’s shop is a representation of his queer masculinity.  The fact that Intimate Books is next door to Aziraphale’s shop serves to highlight the contrast between prevailing, openly-existing culture and subversive, queer identity.  The bookshop’s back room serves as the private space in which Aziraphale’s relationship with Crowley manifests. If the bookshop is his queer body, then the back room is his queer heart.  

In conclusion, Crowley’s and Aziraphale’s shared, subversive queer masculinity is illustrated by the presence of—and their interactions with—their belongings, physical spaces, and veneers of human profession.  When juxtaposed with both the biblical masculine norms from whence they come _and_ the modern masculine norms by which they’re surrounded, their masculinities run markedly against the continuous cis- and heteronormative grain.  For them, the act of subversion is inseparable from their identity.

 

 

* This is not to say that these things are what masculinity _is,_ merely that they are elements of the way that masculinity is frequently and repeatedly _performed_ throughout history.  When we don’t problematize the connection between oppression / violence and masculinity, the two become increasingly intertwined.  It’s not a _natural_ connection, but it _becomes_ natural through repeated, performance-based reinforcement.


End file.
